Re: [rtcweb] URIs for rtcweb "calls"

Ted Hardie <> Mon, 15 August 2011 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B0321F8C9F for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lu9DRxlOoaas for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E30521F8C9E for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxp4 with SMTP id 4so3745696yxp.31 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hgfuBRYoFWIS0t3LW5gCrVjY7A/cbzkSD3MmD+KiwAM=; b=K5C6jQj3RydZAvPDqPEJJHpgZp+OFu1OVjvrfJ9pOolTaXimlJUB5qe8nCe4HZ+sNv NU2+DT8ULRlmkazYhfacuDJVyGnELnJKnxrOD3Iuqp2UQdF159STQ6oTJXYgpHJjPxX4 EJEkAKaB78XCfzV5T3CPXpzeDrxlwTfc7IQjM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id f5mr7750532yhn.210.1313430862936; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:54:22 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] URIs for rtcweb "calls"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:53:37 -0000

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry
<> wrote:
> By "full game context" do you mean it would somehow load an http webpage
> with HTML+CSS+JS to handle the signaling? If that's the case, what
> advantages does this offer over normal http[s] URLs (with a path to the
> necessary page and parameters, etc. needed to carry sufficient information
> to establish the session). That certainly seems to already cover the case
> of, "A URI that I could use to paste into a chat window." How does it handle
> all the things that an http[s] URL already provides (port, path, caching,
> proxies, all the associated services built around http (e.g., etc.)?

As I mentioned in my response to Matthew, I'm thinking abut a range of
potential use cases. For the gaming site example where a full web
context is created, I agree that an HTTPS URI could do the same thing.
 You do get some minor advantages in using a distinct URI scheme,
primarily in early identification that the resulting context will be a
rtcweb context.  This might allow you apply permissions early, like a
parental permission against use of rtcweb, or to allow the device to
start setting up elements of its local context early.  It also allows
you to standardize how you to identify the signaling context and
target entity, which I doubt you could do in HTTPS URIs.  The
arguments for and against scheme proliferation have been going for
quite a while now, of course, so I understand that many people would
prefer that there be only HTTPS URIs here.

For the case where you are setting up something closer to a
web-chat-with-an-agent-for-the-ad-seen here, I think the amount of
page context will be very small, and that it will be closer to the
experience of the browser/app setting up its default widgets for this.

Just my personal opinion,


> If that's not the case, what do you mean by "context"?
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list